Institution
International Food Policy Research Institute
Nonprofit•Washington D.C., District of Columbia, United States•
About: International Food Policy Research Institute is a nonprofit organization based out in Washington D.C., District of Columbia, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Food security & Agriculture. The organization has 1217 authors who have published 4952 publications receiving 218436 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: In this article, an integrated modeling framework for sustainable irrigation management analysis is presented and applied to analyze irrigation water management in the Aral Sea region in Central Asia, and alternative futures of the irrigation practice in the region are explored and it is found that to maintain current irrigation practices will lead to worsening environmental and economic consequences.
238 citations
••
TL;DR: In this paper, a large sample of plots from an intensively titled rice-growing area of Madagascar and compares land-specific investments, land productivity, and land values for titled and untitled plots cultivated by the same household.
Abstract: Formalizing land rights has been promoted as a way to encourage agricultural investment and stimulate land markets, yet little is known about the benefits of such policies in Sub-Saharan Africa, where the preconditions for success are less favorable. The analysis uses a large sample of plots from an intensively titled rice-growing area of Madagascar and compares land-specific investments, land productivity, and land values for titled and untitled plots cultivated by the same household. Having a title has no significant effect on plot-specific investment and correspondingly little effect on land productivity and land values. These results are broadly consistent with a simulation of a theoretical model of investment under expropriation risk calibrated to the same data. A cost benefit analysis suggests that the current system of formal titling should not be extended in rural Madagascar and that any new system of land registration will have to be quite inexpensive to be worthwhile.
238 citations
••
International Food Policy Research Institute1, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign2, Food and Agriculture Organization3, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics4, Massachusetts Institute of Technology5, Joint Global Change Research Institute6, National Institute for Environmental Studies7, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research8, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development9, Wageningen University and Research Centre10, United States Department of Agriculture11, University of Sussex12
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present climate change results and underlying determinants from a model comparison exercise with 10 of the leading global economic models that include significant representation of agriculture, and highlight the need to more fully compare the deep model parameters, to generate a call for a combination of econometric and validation studies to narrow the degree of uncertainty and variability in these parameters and to move to Monte Carlo type simulations to better map the contours of economic uncertainty.
237 citations
••
University of Würzburg1, National University of Comahue2, Spanish National Research Council3, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences4, Universidade Federal de Goiás5, University of Lisbon6, Stanford University7, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation8, National University of Río Negro9, ETH Zurich10, Cornell University11, University of California, Davis12, The Nature Conservancy13, Wageningen University and Research Centre14, University of British Columbia15, Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center16, University of California, Berkeley17, University of Padua18, University of New England (United States)19, Lund University20, University of Göttingen21, University of La Rochelle22, Institut national de la recherche agronomique23, Federal University of Ceará24, Concordia University Wisconsin25, University of Belgrade26, National University of Tucumán27, Michigan State University28, University of Brasília29, University of Greenwich30, University of Reading31, University of Wisconsin-Madison32, Boise State University33, University of Texas at Austin34, University of Haifa35, Kansas State University36, University of Freiburg37, University of Hamburg38, University of California, Santa Barbara39, Seattle University40, University of Vienna41, University of Florida42, Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza43, National Audubon Society44, University of Buenos Aires45, Virginia Tech46, University of Bordeaux47, University of Auckland48, University College Dublin49, Trinity College, Dublin50, University of Tokyo51, Federal University of Bahia52, Lincoln University (Pennsylvania)53, National Institute for Environmental Studies54, International Food Policy Research Institute55, Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University56
TL;DR: Using a global database from 89 crop systems, the relative importance of abundance and species richness for pollination, biological pest control and final yields in the context of on-going land-use change is partitioned.
Abstract: Human land use threatens global biodiversity and compromises multiple ecosystem functions critical to food production. Whether crop yield-related ecosystem services can be maintained by few abundant species or rely on high richness remains unclear. Using a global database from 89 crop systems, we partition the relative importance of abundance and species richness for pollination, biological pest control and final yields in the context of on-going land-use change. Pollinator and enemy richness directly supported ecosystem services independent of abundance. Up to 50% of the negative effects of landscape simplification on ecosystem services was due to richness losses of service-providing organisms, with negative consequences for crop yields. Maintaining the biodiversity of ecosystem service providers is therefore vital to sustain the flow of key agroecosystem benefits to society.
237 citations
••
TL;DR: In this article, a newly constructed comprehensive database of 122 targeted antipoverty interventions in 48 countries is used to examine the contested issue of the efficacy of targeting interventions in developing countries, and the results show that targeting is better in richer countries, where governments are more likely to be held accountable, and in countries where inequality is higher.
Abstract: A newly constructed comprehensive database of 122 targeted antipoverty interventions in 48 countries is used to examine the contested issue of the efficacy of targeting interventions in developing countries. Though the median program transfers 25 percent more to poor individuals (those in the bottom two quintiles) than would universal allocation, a quarter of the interventions are regressive. Targeting is better in richer countries, in countries where governments are more likely to be held accountable, and in countries where inequality is higher. Interventions that use means testing, geographic targeting, and self- selection based on a work requirement are all associated with an increased share of benefits going to poor people. Proxy- means testing, community- based selection, and demographic targeting to children show good results on average but with wide variation. Self- selection based on consumption, demographic targeting to the elderly and community bidding show limited potential for good targeting. The substantial variation in targeting performance within specific program, types and specific targeting methods suggests that differences in implementation are also important factors in determining the success of targeting to poor individuals.
236 citations
Authors
Showing all 1269 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Michael B. Zimmermann | 83 | 437 | 23563 |
Kenneth H. Brown | 79 | 353 | 23199 |
Thomas Reardon | 79 | 285 | 25458 |
Marie T. Ruel | 77 | 300 | 22862 |
John Hoddinott | 75 | 357 | 21372 |
Mark W. Rosegrant | 73 | 315 | 22194 |
Agnes R. Quisumbing | 72 | 311 | 18433 |
Johan F.M. Swinnen | 70 | 570 | 20039 |
Stefan Dercon | 69 | 259 | 17696 |
Jikun Huang | 69 | 430 | 18496 |
Gregory J. Seymour | 66 | 385 | 17744 |
Lawrence Haddad | 65 | 243 | 24931 |
Rebecca J. Stoltzfus | 61 | 224 | 13711 |
Ravi Kanbur | 61 | 498 | 19422 |
Ruth Meinzen-Dick | 61 | 237 | 13707 |